The Daily News. WEDNESDAY. MAY 29, 1901. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 113, 29 May 1901, Page 2

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY. MAY 29, 1901. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY.

The Lunedin Star reports I hat an important judgment was delivered by Mr. E. H. Carew at the Magistra'es' Court, Dunedin, on Friday, in an important action having a bearing on the liability of municipalties for the action of their contractor* in th'i construction of or interference with roads their jurisdiction. The action was brought by James B*in, junior, against the Dunedin Corporation and their contractor, Daniel M'lntyr-?. The claim was for .£25, as compensation for damages sustained by plaintiff by b:ing thrown out of his cart by its bumping into a rut lrft by the contractor, through imperfect filling of a trench made in connecting a do in with a sewer. In the course of his judgment. Mr. Carew said: — The trench was filled up on Friday, and on Saturday Mr. Boy and Mr. Anderson, each driving a horse, and cart at different times of the day, got into the hole and narrowly escaped accidents, and„it is evi dent that the hole was a -dangerous trap that day. The defendant, Mr. M'lntyre, gave evidence that he was engaged at work on Saturday up to 5 o'clock p.m., and taw nothii g of the hole. He admitted that filling in will always sink, especially in rainy weather, as it was then. If "that is so, it was his clear duty t) keep a grol look-out, and, a ho'e being there, to have filled it up, and it was tegligenca on his part not to do so. The defendant, M'lntyrp, is certainly liable-. The case against the Corporation is that the st-ee's are vested in them and under thfir contro', and having suffered IlufS'llBtreet to be trenched and opened up, it wag the duty cf the Corroboration to tea that no nuisance was created in the course of these operations. The connection of the house drainage with the sewer cnuld not be done without the assent of the Corporation, and the work was supervised by the Corporation Inspector. In Penney v. Wimbledon Uub n Council, 67 L.J., Q.B , 756, Bruce, J., referring to ao eailier decision in Pickard v. Smith, said : The principle of the decision, I think, is this ' That when a person employs a contracts to do work in a place where the public are in the hab t of pas ing, which work will, unKss precautions are taken, cause danger to the fublic, an obligation is thrown upon the person who orders the work to be done, to see that the necessary pre cautious aro taker., and if the necessary precautions are loi taken he cannot t scape liabi'ity by se king to throw the blame on the ■ ositractor. Further on in the judgment he said:— "The district council employ a contractor to do the work upon the surface of a road whfch they krisw is being us' d by the arid they must havi' known that the works which were to be executed would cause some obs rue ion of traffic, and some dinger, unlss means were taken to give dua warning to the public. The duty of affording protection to the public was in the circumstances incurred by the dist'ict coulcL', and the district couccil could not avoid the obligation of the duty by

entering into a contract with lies' The same principle will apply wheiP svork is bßiDg doue with the f anctiou if the Corporation, ind under the RUfO!vision of their inspector. It was the duty of the Corporation, if they pelmitted the street to bo opened up, tP see that the public wire protected fro» negligence that creatsd a ouisanci. After some remarks cn the question of damages—the fact f;ak plaintiff w? disabled from work for- a 1 ng time to b3 taken into consideration —lii Worship gave judgment for £ls a«d £7 cojtp, the £ls including £3 153 f i surgical attendance apd a chemi'l' K accjiin^.